CustodyStress
Archive › Owner death
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-00321

Owner death — software wallet 2016

Blocked
Case description
An estate attorney noted a 2016 case where the deceased had referenced 'the password is where we first met' in a letter addressed to their spouse. The couple had met at multiple locations over their long relationship and the spouse could not determine which location was intended. Professional wallet recovery attempts using all plausible location-based passphrases were unsuccessful.
Custody context
Stress conditionOwner death
Custody systemMobile or software wallet
OutcomeBlocked
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2016
CountryUnknown
Structural dependencies observed
Single point of failureUndocumented procedure
What this illustrates
There was only one way in. When that path was gone, so was access. Access was not recoverable.
Outcome interpretation
Access was not possible under the reported conditions.
Source
Publicly Reported
Evidence type
Forum post
Related cases involving owner death
119 cases involve owner death 572 cases involve mobile or software wallet View archive statistics →
This archive documents observed custody survivability failures. It does not attempt to document all Bitcoin losses or security incidents. Submit a case
← All cases
Framework references
Terms guide
Survives
Access remained possible under the reported conditions.
Constrained
Access remained possible, but only with delay, dependence, or significant difficulty.
Blocked
Access was not possible under the reported conditions.
Indeterminate
There was not enough information to determine the outcome.
Single-person knowledge
Recovery depended on information or capability held by one individual who was unavailable.
Institutional dependence
Recovery depended on a third-party institution or service that was inaccessible or uncooperative.
Documentation gap
Recovery depended on instructions that were missing, incomplete, or unclear.
Authority mismatch
The person with legal authority to act did not have operational access, or vice versa.